6 ms·

xor is a commutative operation; there is no technical distinction between the "data" and "encryption pad" as you call them. The URL identifies an unordered set

xor is a commutative operation; there is no technical distinction between the "data" and "encryption pad" as you call them. The URL identifies an unordered set of blocks, and does not distinguish which of them are the pre-existing "randomizer" blocks ("encryption pad" blocks, as you call them), and which one is the new block ("data" block, as you call it). The URL has a set of blocks, you xor them all together in any order, and you get the result.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
All encryption functions are total, it’s just that the block size of XOR is 1 bit. If you decided to take AES-256 and then split your data into blocks of 256 bits and then encrypted them with other groups of blocks of 256 bits, you would get exactly the same conceptual result. That being said (this definition is absolutely irrelevant) - it doesn’t matter if you have an unordered set of blocks; if by applying them together you get the data then every one who held the block is liable. Would you say that if you stored child porn on a RAID array and then distributed this RAID array across several people and removed one disk then philosophically the only moment when that porn really exists is only when it is combined to get the data in memory?
- LukeShu 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you've brought up philosophy twice now; what I'm showing is that the system makes it hard, practically, to tell who did what; no philosophy involved. All but one of the blocks were already used by other people for entirely unrelated purposes. Only one of the blocks was created in the process of uploading illicit material, and it is impossible to know which one that is (from inspecting the blocks themselves; if you knew when each block was created--which the system does not track--then you could just say "the last one to be created"). You had asserted that the URL tells you which block that is; all I said to you is that it does not. And even if you did identify which block that was, after a short time, another unsuspecting user of the network will end up using that block-involved-in-illicit-activity as a randomizer block for an entirely unrelated purpose; say: uploading cat gifs. And then others download those cat gifs, and download that block; having no idea that that block is also used to download child porn. The idea of the system is that after a short time, virtually every data block on the network will have many unrelated uses. And because of those many unrelated uses, one cannot say that transmission of any given block indicates one of those uses over any of the other uses. I haven't made any sort of philosophical argument that the illicit material does not exist until it when the data blocks are combined in memory, or anything like that. I have only made the argument that because each data block has many unrelated uses, it is difficult to prove who is using it for which uses. As I said in another comment, you can start to figure out things if you keep track of patterns of which blocks are downloaded when; but tracking that is a lot harder than tracking a single block. And that's the point of the system; to make it hard to prove specific assertions about who did what.

heavenlyblue 6y ago

All encryption functions are total, it’s just that the block size of XOR is 1 bit. If you decided to take AES-256 and then split your data into blocks of 256 bits and then encrypted them with other groups of blocks of 256 bits, you would get exactly the same conceptual result. That being said (this definition is absolutely irrelevant) - it doesn’t matter if you have an unordered set of blocks; if by applying them together you get the data then every one who held the block is liable. Would you say that if you stored child porn on a RAID array and then distributed this RAID array across several people and removed one disk then philosophically the only moment when that porn really exists is only when it is combined to get the data in memory?

LukeShu 6y ago
I'm not sure why you've brought up philosophy twice now; what I'm showing is that the system makes it hard, practically, to tell who did what; no philosophy involved. All but one of the blocks were already used by other people for entirely unrelated purposes. Only one of the blocks was created in the process of uploading illicit material, and it is impossible to know which one that is (from inspecting the blocks themselves; if you knew when each block was created--which the system does not track--then you could just say "the last one to be created"). You had asserted that the URL tells you which block that is; all I said to you is that it does not. And even if you did identify which block that was, after a short time, another unsuspecting user of the network will end up using that block-involved-in-illicit-activity as a randomizer block for an entirely unrelated purpose; say: uploading cat gifs. And then others download those cat gifs, and download that block; having no idea that that block is also used to download child porn. The idea of the system is that after a short time, virtually every data block on the network will have many unrelated uses. And because of those many unrelated uses, one cannot say that transmission of any given block indicates one of those uses over any of the other uses. I haven't made any sort of philosophical argument that the illicit material does not exist until it when the data blocks are combined in memory, or anything like that. I have only made the argument that because each data block has many unrelated uses, it is difficult to prove who is using it for which uses. As I said in another comment, you can start to figure out things if you keep track of patterns of which blocks are downloaded when; but tracking that is a lot harder than tracking a single block. And that's the point of the system; to make it hard to prove specific assertions about who did what.